APHC010161322017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21474/2017 Between: 1. HOTHA SREE RAMACHANDRA MURTHY., S/O. SIVARAMA SASTRY, AGED 63 YEARS. R/O. HUKUMPETA, GOPALAPURAM (M). WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. VISWANADHAM KAMESWARI., W/O. ACTHUTARAMAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS. R/O. HUKUMPETA, GOPALAPURAM (M). WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. SRI KAMESWARI AGRICULTURAL FARM,, REP.BY ITS PARTNER. H.V.S.S.NAGESWARI W/O. H.S.R.MURTHY. AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. HUKUMPETA, GOPALAPURAM (M). WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. KANNEPALLI SIVARAMA AVADHANI., S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 70 YEARS. R/O. HUKUMPETA, GOPALAPURAM (M). WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. SRI BHANU AGRICULTURAL FARM,, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. CHALLA BHANUMATHI W/O.JOGARAO. AGED 65 YEARS, RIO. HUKUMPETA, GOPALAPURAM (M). WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. SMT. CHALLA BHANUMATHI., W/O.JOGARAO. AGED 65 YEARS, RIO. HUKUMPETA, GOPALAPURAM (M). WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERCUMLAND ACQUISITION, OFFICER (LAO) JANGAREDDIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (LAND ACQUISITION) AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the respondents herein in not making a reference to appropriate Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, inspite of a request being made to the 1st respndent on 02- 05-2007 by the petitioners, being aggrieved to the rate of compensation fixed by Negotiations Committee and also the respondents failed to make a supplementary award so far, after ascertainment of values for trees and structures, as suchs their action is wholly, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 26397 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents herein not to cut mango trees etc., in R.S.Nos.600, 603 etc., as mentioned in Award Roc.No.99/ 2006/LA Dated 11- 05-2008 of LND Peta (V), Polavaram (M) West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order: The land of the petitioners, to an extent of Ac.116.37 cents, in various survey numbers of LND Peta Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, had been acquired for the purposes of submergence under the Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project. An award had also been passed on 11.03.2008. However, various components of compensation, such as market value and solatium etc, in relation to structures & trees etc, were not included in the said award. The authorities, who passed the award also stated that these components would be added, by way of a supplementary award, once the valuation from the concerned departments is obtained. 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the market value fixed for the land and being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of other components, had sought reference under Section-18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the Act, 1894”]. This application for reference is said to have been submitted on 02.05.2007, to the Land Acquisition Officer. A copy of the said representation containing the signatures of the petitioners has been placed before this Court. The petitioners contend that apart from this representation, the petitioner had also made various other representations including a representation, dated 25.04.2017. However, no action has been taken on these representations for referring the issue to the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed despite the pendency of this Writ Petition for eight years. However, the Learned Assistant Government 4 Pleader for Revenue has today placed written instructions of the respondents, before this Court. In these written instructions, it is stated that the applications seeking reference had never been filed with the authorities and as such, no reference can be made. The written instructions also state that the award was a consent award, as the petitioners had signed the award in token of accepting the compensation granted under the said award. The applications produced, by the petitioners, do not contain any mark of acknowledgment of receipt of the representations. 4. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. Date: 21-11-2025 BSM 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Writ Petition No.21474 of 2017 21-11-2025 BSM